Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Ferguson v Dallow [2020] FCA 1739 File number: TAD 31 of 2020
Judgment of: KERR J
Date of judgment: 2 December 2020
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – claim that online publication of a video contravened the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Sch 2 (Australian Consumer Law) and constituted defamation – ex parte application for urgent interim injunctive relief, including orders permitting proceeding to be conducted under a pseudonym and prohibiting further publication of the relevant video – exceptional circumstances found to exist – orders not made permitting proceeding to be conducted under a pseudonym – other orders sought made on an interim basis until an interlocutory hearing, but confined to terms appropriate to minimise impact on open justice
Legislation: Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Sch 2 (Australian Consumer Law) ss 18, 19, 236 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 37AI
Cases cited: Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill [2006] HCA 46; 227 CLR 57 Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd [1968] HCA 1; 118 CLR 618 Bonnard v Perryman [1891] 2 Ch 269 Church of Scientology of California Inc v Readers Digest Services Pty Ltd [1980] 1 NSWLR 344 Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [1997] HCA 25; 189 CLR 520
Division: General Division
Registry: Victoria
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: Regulator and Consumer Protection
Number of paragraphs: 31
Date of hearing: 1 and 2 December 2020
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate